No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Using political sanctions to discourage intergroup attacks: Social identity and authority legitimacy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 August 2019
Abstract
De Dreu and Gross offer novel solutions to discouraging attackers via political sanctions. We offer insights from social psychological and criminological research on when such sanctions would work and when they could backfire. We argue that the influence of such sanctioning ultimately rests upon the extent to which such authorities can claim to represent the society that they serve.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019
References
Adams, J. S. (1966) Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 2:267–99. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2.Google Scholar
Guimond, S., Crisp, R. J., De Oliveira, P., Kamiejski, R., Kteily, N., Kuepper, B., Lalonde, R. N., Levin, S., Pratto, F., Tougas, F., Sidanius, J. & Zick, A. (2013) Diversity policy, social dominance, and intergroup relations: Predicting prejudice in changing social and political contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 104:941–58. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032069.Google Scholar
Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R. & Lind, E. A. (1996) Identification and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem; is assimilation the answer? Psychological Science 7:40–45. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00664.x.Google Scholar
Messick, D. M. & Cook, K. S. (1983) Equity theory: Psychological and sociological perspectives. Praeger.Google Scholar
Pehrson, S., Devaney, L., Blaylock, D. & Bryan, D. (2017) Beyond group engagement: Multiple pathways from encounters with the police to cooperation and compliance in Northern Ireland. PLoS One 12(9):e0184436. Available at: https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184436.Google Scholar
Radburn, M. & Stott, C. (2018) The social psychological processes of “procedural justice”: Concepts, critiques and opportunities. Criminology and Criminal Justice. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895818780200.Google Scholar
Radburn, M., Stott, C., Bradford, B. & Robinson, M. (2016) When is policing fair? Groups, identity and judgements of the procedural justice of coercive crowd policing. Policing and Society 28(6):647–664. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2016.1234470.Google Scholar
Reicher, S. D. (1996) “The Battle of Westminster”: Developing the social identity model of crowd behaviour in order to explain the initiation and development of collective conflict. European Journal of Social Psychology 26:115–34. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(199601)26:1<115::aid-ejsp740>3.3.co;2-q.3.3.co;2-q.>Google Scholar
Tankard, M. E. & Paluck, E. L. (2016) Norm perception as a vehicle for social change. Social Issues and Policy Review 10:181–211.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. & Lind, E. A. (1992) A relational model of authority in groups. In: Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 25, pp. 115–82. Academic Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60283-X.Google Scholar
Turner, J. C. (2005) Explaining the nature of power: A three process theory. European Journal of Social Psychology 35(1):1–22.Google Scholar
Target article
Revisiting the form and function of conflict: Neurobiological, psychological, and cultural mechanisms for attack and defense within and between groups
Related commentaries (28)
A note on the endogeneity of attacker and defender roles in asymmetric conflicts
Advantaged- and disadvantaged-group members have motivations similar to those of defenders and attackers, but their psychological characteristics are fundamentally different
Attack versus defense: A strategic rationale for role differentiation in conflict
Behavioural inhibition and valuation of gain/loss are neurally distinct from approach/withdrawal
Between-group attack and defence in an ecological setting: Insights from nonhuman animals
But how does it develop? Adopting a sociocultural lens to the development of intergroup bias among children
Collective action problems in offensive and defensive warfare
Do people always invest less in attack than defense? Possible qualifying factors
Emotions in attacker-defender conflicts
Functional sex differences and signal forms have coevolved with conflict
Identity leadership: Managing perceptions of conflict for collective action
Levels of analysis and problems of evidential support in the study of asymmetric conflict
Matching pennies games as asymmetric models of conflict
Moral rigidity as a proximate facilitator of group cohesion and combativeness
Reasons to strike first
Resolving attacker-defender conflicts through intergroup negotiation
Symmetric conflicts also allow for the investigation of attack and defense
The attack and defense games
The attack and defense mechanisms: Perspectives from behavioral economics and game theory
The evolutionarily mismatched nature of modern group makeup and the proposed application of such knowledge on promoting unity among members during times of intergroup conflict
The importance of raiding ecology and sex differences in offensive and defensive warfare
The multiple facets of psychopathy in attack and defense conflicts
The political complexity of attack and defense
Toward the need to discriminate types of attackers and defenders in intergroup conflicts
Towards the elucidation of evolution of out-group aggression
Unraveling the role of oxytocin in the motivational structure of conflict
Using political sanctions to discourage intergroup attacks: Social identity and authority legitimacy
Using the research on intergroup conflict in nonhuman animals to help inform patterns of human intergroup conflict
Author response
Asymmetric conflict: Structures, strategies, and settlement